ML022140297
| ML022140297 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Iowa |
| Issue date: | 07/24/2002 |
| From: | Wendt S Iowa State Univ |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML022140297 (3) | |
Text
"IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY College of Engineering Department of Mlechanical Engineering OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2025 H. MLBlack Engineering Building Ames, Iowa 5oo0 1 -2161 515 294-1423 FAX 515 294-3261 http://wwww.eng.iastate.edu/me Docket No. 50-116 Ref: 10 CFR 50.71 (a)
July 24, 2002 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 To Whom it May Concern:
Please find enclosed the Annual Operations Report for the Iowa State University UTR- 10 reactor. The period covered by this report is from July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002.
Sinc ely, Scott E. Wendt, Reactor Manager Mechanical Engineering Department Enclosure c: American Nuclear Insurers D.B. Bullen, Facility Director, Chm., Radiation Safety Committee W.R. DeVries, Chm., Mechanical Engineering Department D.A. Inyang, Dir., Environmental Health & Safety U.S. NRC, Region III 4\oN ro
Annual Operations Report Iowa State University's UTR- 10 Reactor Docket No. 50-116 July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002 This is a routine operations report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with the requirements of Section 6.6 of the Technical Specifications, Appendix A to Operating License R-59.
As reported previously, the final reactor criticality was May 8, 1998. Reactor operations were officially ceased on May 15, 1998. Demolition of the reactor commenced in June 2000 and was completed in early August 2000. The Final Status Survey report for the decommissioning of the UTR- 10 was submitted on October 9, 2000.
- 1. Major preventive and corrective maintenance operations having safety significance:
No corrective maintenance was required. No surveillance and maintenance activities were required.
- 2. Major changes in the reactor facility and procedures that are significantly different from those performed previously and are not described in the Safety Analysis Report, including conclusions that no un-reviewed safety questions were involved:
As reported previously, Duke Engineering & Services arrived on-site June 6, 2000 and began demolition activities shortly thereafter. Prior to commencement of the decommissioning activities, the Reactor Use Committee reviewed the work procedures and performed a Safety Review per 10 CFR 50.59 on a proposed change to demolition methods. The removal of the reactor was completed in early August 2000. The Final Status Survey report for the decommissioning of the UTR-10 was submitted on October 9, 2000.
Annual Operations Report for R-59.... Page I of 2
- 3. Summary of the nature and amount of radioactive effluents released or discharged to the environs beyond the effective control of the University as determined at or before the point of such release or discharge. (Estimates of individual radio-nuclides present in the effluent are included, to the extent practical.):
Argon-41: No Ar-41 was released.
As reported previously, monitoring of dust and air in the demolition area indicated that no radioactive materials were released during the decommissioning activities. Liquid waste was collected for later disposal. The solid demolition debris was taken to the local landfill only after verification that there was no detectable radioactivity present. This is explained and documented in detail in the final decommissioning report. All material disposed of in conjunction with the decommissioning was shipped to US Ecology in Tennessee.
- 4. Summarized results of any environmental surveys performed outside the facility:
No environmental surveys outside the facility were required since the trigger level, based on surveys inside the facility, was not exceeded.
Supplemental environmental surveys were performed by ISU Environmental Health &
Safety in and around the Nuclear Engineering Lab during the decommissioning activities.
No radioactivity above background was detected.
- 5. Summary of exposure received by facility personnel and visitors:
No facility personnel or visitors had exposures greater than 25% of that allowed or recommended.
Annual Operations Report for R-59.... Page 2 of 2